Failing to uncover any linguistic sense in the Voynich text, some researchers turn to the proposal that the glyphs in the words have been shuffled, and so they seek methods to unshuffle them.
On the face of things, though, it is not the glyphs that have been shuffled, but the words. When we look at lines of Voynich text, there is every appearance that the words have been shuffled out of sequence.
We detect groups and series of related words, but they are interrupted and broken. Often there are two series of related words, but they have been shuffled together.
The text, as I understand it, is the intermixture of the metamorphosizing paradigms, QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN. In lines of text, the metamorphosis of these paradigms is mixed and shuffled. Throughout, there is the suggestion of a lost order.
Can we restore the proper order of words in lines?
* * *
The paradigms being paradigms, the text is resolved in the paradigms.
That is what the paradigms are, and how they are discovered. They are the words that all other words are resolved into. The preferred sequences of glyphs lead to these words.
But Voynich words must also begin there as well.
In my model, the text begins and ends in QOKEEDY and CHOLDAIIN.
What we witness in the text, then, is both the dissolving and the crystallization of the text out of and back into the paradigms.
The text starts with the paradigms. These are then deconstructed. Then the fragments of the deconstruction are reconstructed back into the paradigmatic forms. Disassembly - reassembly. Thus:
Two cycles of this palindromic pattern run throughout the text and in lines of text we see them interwoven.
By my account, this pattern is astronomical, or astrological - not linguistic. We see the movements of the solar year, the lengthening and shortening of days culminating in the solstices. (The gallows glyphs mark the solstices.)
Be that as it may, it is the pattern we see in lines of Voynichese.
* * *
We can, however, unweave the intermixing and separate words in lines out into the two cycles of disassembly and reassembly.
It is easiest to see in lines where one or the other paradigm dominates.
Consider this line, line 8, from f76v:
qokeedy.ochedy.roiin.sheedy.qokeedy.okeedy.olor.okeedy.qolkeeey.r.al-
As we can see, this line features the QOKEEDY paradigm, and includes two instances of that word. But a few elements from CHOLDAIIN are interspersed.
Here is the line stratified into the two paradigms. Blue marks the elements from QOKEEDY.
qokeedy.ochedy.roiin.sheedy.qokeedy.okeedy.olor.okeedy.qolkeeey.r.al-
Let us strip away the intruding CHOLDAIIN elements:
qokeedy.oedy.eedy.qokeedy.okeedy.okeedy.qokeeey-
We can now reorder these words as disassembling permutations, thus:
qokeedy.
qokeedy.
qokeeey.
okeedy.
okeedy.
eedy.
oedy.
Another example, line 29, f108v:
pol.shedaiin.qokeoy.keol.chokeol.qotedy.qoteedy.dar.raiin.shedy.qotain.oteedy-
pol.
shedaiin.
qokeoy.
keol.
chokeol.
qotedy.
qoteedy.
dar.
raiin.
shedy.
qotain.
oteedy-
p.
e.
qokey.
ke.
ke.
qotedy.
qoteedy.
edy.
qot.
oteedy-
This is an assembling order:
p.
e.
ke.
ke.
edy.
qot.
qokey.
qotedy.
oteedy-
qoteedy.
In the actual line, though, - note well - the culmination of the assembly is at the midline.
***
This, I propose, is the essential step in untangling lines of text and is the method I will pursue in further studies. It follows directly from my previous research.
My general proposal, to state it again, is that the entire text is based on only two (cycling) words, and all the rules of the text are implicit in them and their relationship to one another.
Why the two cycles are intermixed, and according to what principles and processes, is another and more difficult question.
R.B.
No comments:
Post a Comment